Padayhag v. Director of Lands
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over six parcels of land: Lot Nos. 2883, 2888, 2921, and 2922 (Lumbia Lots) located in Lumbia District, Pagadian City, and Lot Nos. 2102 and 2104 (Santa Lucia Lots) located in Santa Lucia District, Pagadian City. The Heirs of Lourdes Padayhag claim ownership of the Lumbia Lots based on an agreement where possession was transferred to Southern Mindanao Colleges (SMC) in exchange for shares, and they sought to reclaim the land. They also claim occupancy of portions of the Santa Lucia Lots since 1927. SMC, on the other hand, asserts ownership of the Santa Lucia Lots through separate deeds of sale from previous owners. Procedural History: The Director of Lands initiated Cadastral Case No. N-17. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of SMC on May 30, 2006, awarding all six lots to the institution. However, the RTC later granted the Padayhags' motion for reconsideration on December 27, 2007, reversing its earlier decision and awarding portions of the lots to the Padayhags while declaring other portions as alienable public domain. SMC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the appeal on July 31, 2012, ruling that the RTC decision was void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction stemming from insufficient publication of the initial hearing notice. The CA denied SMC's motion for reconsideration on January 10, 2013. The Petition: Two petitions were filed before the Supreme Court. G.R. No. 202872 is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by the Heirs of Lourdes M. Padayhag. G.R. No. 206062 is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 filed by Southern Mindanao Colleges (SMC). Both petitions assail the CA's decision and resolution. The Padayhags argue that the CA erred in finding a lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the notice of initial hearing was properly published in the Official Gazette. SMC, conversely, argues that the CA erred in dismissing its appeal and that its Rule 65 petition is the proper remedy. The Supreme Court consolidated these petitions and ultimately remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for resolution on the merits, finding that while SMC's Rule 65 petition was improper, the Padayhags' Rule 45 petition should be granted to correct the CA's premature dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the RTC Decision and Resolution for want of jurisdiction. Whether the RTC's failure to notify the OSG of the cadastral proceedings and the orders therein deprived the State of due process and rendered the RTC Decision and Resolution void. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to decide on the nature of the "Agreement Referring to Real Property" which covers Lot Nos. 2883, 2888, 2921 and 2922, and whether there remain mixed questions of law and facts as to Lot Nos. 2102 and 2104 that should be remanded to the CA for its resolution. Whether SMC's certiorari petition under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the CA Decision.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Petition in G.R. No. No. 202872, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision dated July 31, 2012, and its Resolution dated January 10, 2013. The consolidated cases were remanded to the Court of Appeals for resolution on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and publication of the notice of initial hearing: The Court found that the CA erred in ruling the RTC decision void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction. The applicable laws at the time of the initial hearing (Act 2259 and Act 496) required only the publication of the notice of initial hearing twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette. The CA's requirement for publication in a newspaper of general circulation was imposed only by Presidential Decree No. 1529, which was enacted later. The Padayhags presented evidence, including microfilm print-outs of the Official Gazette certified by the University of the Philippines Library, showing the publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing for Cadastral Case No. N-17 in the issues of October 24 and 31, 1966. The Court took judicial notice of these publications. Given that the cadastral case involved approximately 1,409 lots, the CA's pronouncement of void ab initio was deemed imprudent and potentially cast doubt on the validity of numerous other cadastral proceedings. The Court stated that at the very least, the CA should have required the parties to present proof of publication. On the alleged failure to notify the OSG and deprivation of due process: The Court found it difficult to reconcile the OSG's position of not being notified with the nature of cadastral proceedings. Sections 1 and 5 of the Cadastral Act indicate that the Director of Lands, represented by the Solicitor General, institutes these proceedings. The Court presumed that official duty was regularly performed and was not prepared to nullify the proceedings without thorough verification by the OSG. The Court noted the significant delay of 40 years from the initial hearing notice to the RTC decision, making summary nullification unjust. On the nature of the "Agreement Referring to Real Property" and mixed questions of law and fact for Lot Nos. 2102 and 2104: The Court determined that these issues involved questions of fact. Since the CA had not resolved these issues on the merits, the Court deemed it appropriate to remand the cases to the CA for its resolution as the reviewer of facts. On the propriety of SMC's certiorari petition under Rule 65: The Court agreed with the Padayhags and the OSG that SMC availed of the wrong remedy. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to appeal a CA decision. SMC's prior attempt to file a Rule 45 petition was denied due to non-payment of docket fees, and certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal due to fault or negligence. However, the denial of SMC's petition was deemed of no moment because the cases were being remanded to the CA for resolution on the merits.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court's decision in a cadastral case was void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction due to the alleged failure to publish the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation, as the applicable law at the time only required publication in the Official Gazette. The Court took judicial notice of the publication in the Official Gazette and remanded the case for resolution on the merits.